Thanks for visiting! As of November 21, 2006, please visit the more current blog at www.wthrockmorton.com.

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Big Day at the NEA convention in Orlando

A sampling of big doings at the NEA confab:

1. I blogged earlier this week about a change in language regarding gay marriage that was to be voted on at the convention. Resolution B-8 was submitted by the NEA's GLBT Caucus but was later the NEA Resolutions Committee. The change would put the NEA on record as supporting same-sex unions in the seven U.S. states where they are now legal. The update is that the Resolutions Committee has advanced the original resolution (B-8) and the revised resolution (B-10) as amendments to be voted on by the NEA Representative Assembly. So if both passed the NEA would be able to have its wedding cake and eat it too.

2. Wayne Besen's group, TruthWinsOut and a couple of other advocacy groups had a news conference in front of the Orlando Convention Center protesting the presence of the ex-gay educator caucus. Today's Orlando Sentinel reports on the news conference and reaction from the ex-gay educators caucus.

3. A little later, there was a verbal dispute near the ex-gay educator's caucus booth, one result of which was Wayne being escorted out of the convention center by some of Orlando's finest law enforcement. Word is that the F-word was flying. Be interested in Wayne's account of the fracas.

I don't know that it rises to the level of news. I didn't say a scuffle; I said a fracas :)

From the accounts I have heard there was a shouting match which ended in Wayne being asked to leave by the authorities. That's about all I know. It may be that Wayne was asked to leave because he was a visitor and not an exibitor. I don't mean to say he provoked it or who was to blame. Please don't read more into my comment than I state.

Shouldn't there be an ex-straight booth at the NEA convention, along with an Ex-Ex Gay booth? I mean this honestly - if there is going to be an Ex-Gay booth there, shouldn't other voices be heard as well?

So with no verifiable sources, you're going to toss out gossip & accusations that, Good Heavens!, Wayne Besen dropped the F-bomb and got in a shouting match with some fruitcakes trying to legitimize their abuse of their influence as teachers by peddling extremist propaganda...

A) You have no credibility, as usual.

B) Do you think Wayne, I or any other person committed to justice is going to back down from a confrontation with a right-wing nut-case? If he said something that wasn't Christian or ethical, I'm sure he'll apologize.

Wayne Besen's extreme actions are simply indiciative of deep wounds and no doubt go much deeper than merely a same sex attraction disorder. His actions speak volumes. One can only pray that he finds the source of these issues and seeks to heal them. As to the comment about black people being arrested you have one grand problem with equating the civil rights struggles with this issue. In one (the black civil rights issue) we have a group that has an immutable trait (black skin color, or more correctly, brown) and it is genetic and from birth. The opposite is true of homosexuality as even the old case histories (prior to the APA's having the designation removed by fraud and deceit, instead of science) showed a clear and distinct trend towards a natural tendency of reversion to heterosexality, in a fairly linear fashion, correlated with age. Plus the many cases we see in "normal" theray (i.e. treatment for conditions other than ssa) that also show a tendency towards reversion to heterosexuality when therapy is successful in dealing with the OTHER issues. While the attactions certainly are not a "choice" in early adolescence givinf patients the information such as I have cited above is clearly the ethical thing to do. All those wishing otherwise are merely parroting the radical far left propaganda of persons like Besen. The louder they rail the more obvious (even to the mere layman) is their apparent dysfunction.

So with no verifiable sources, you're going to toss out gossip & accusations that, Good Heavens!, Wayne Besen dropped the F-bomb and got in a shouting match with some people who were trying to legitimize their abuse of their influence as teachers by promoting viewpoints that have roundly been discredity by the medical & psychological community...

A) There is no credibility to the initial post because you have no verifiable sources.

B) Do you think Wayne, I or any other person committed to justice is going to back down from a confrontation with someone promoting injustice? If he said something that wasn't Christian or ethical, I'm sure he'll apologize.

I think you may feel a little sheepish when Wayne verifies the events. He may, as I said, have a differing perspective on why it happened and he may have been removed because he was not an exhibitor and the others were. I reported what I was told by someone I trust. My understanding is that there are several witnesses who have no axe to grind. Of course, if this proves to be false, I will remove the statements from the blog.

Dear Nate: Your comments about the concept of change being "roundly discredited" by the psychological community is far from the truth. If you took the time (and were open and honest in your investigation instead of beginning with an assumption and discarding anything which does not ratify it) you will plainly see that the events surrounding the categories removal from the DSM was done with a large dose of deceit and actual fraud. There are many (and the numbers are growing daily) that have seen what this dysfunction does to their patients, and we are not talking about the pressures of society we are talking about internal turmoil because instictively humans KNOW they were not meant to be acting in this manner. Furthermore, it is the patient, not you or me, that should have the ability to judge the facts (and it IS a fact that sexuality is a fluid thing and not "fixed" and unchangeable as your side would have us believe). We are ethically bound to present these facts. When we do it is the Besen's of the world who go ballistic in their behaviour, signifying not that they are "right" but that they are trying to stifle the truth being offered to those that wish to change. To date I have not met one single solitary person, in or out of a therapeutic setting that wished this thing upon them, not a single solitary one. Nada. Your side wishes to eliminate the ability of the profession to present the facts and those are clear, that sexuality is, far from being a "fixed and immutable" thing. Even the research of many "gay" researchers fails to be able to eliminate this fact, try as they have by selectively "picking" not only subjects for their studies, but skewing the results themselves. If it were anything approaching "normal" then we would not see any difference in them when viewed alongside the general populace. The FACT is, that when these studies are done there is a great divergence of maladaptive behaviours that immediately stand out. They are stark.We care deeply for these people that are in pain and want help in understanding HOW they got to this place and we are ethically BOUND to let them see the reearch and then let them, the patient, determine what route they wish to take.Your side wants to deny them this right and the antics of Besen and ones like him do not bode well for your cause, they in fact demonstrate, but another maladaptive behaviour showing itself in grand form. The inability to control oneself to any demonstrable degree, the mark of an addictive personality. If you took the time to do some actual research this would be apparent, but I guess it would make one have to face himself and grow, and that is a hard thing to do for all of us at times, so I can understand the behaviour.

"As to the comment about black people being arrested you have one grand problem with equating the civil rights struggles with this issue. In one (the black civil rights issue) we have a group that has an immutable trait (black skin color, or more correctly, brown) and it is genetic and from birth."

You're completely right, anonymous. Race being a genetic trait is what made the civil rights struggle valid. Obviously, if black people were able to make the choice to become white, they ought to do so, but since they cannot, we must pity them their unfortunate condition and extend our sympathy.

As to your contention that homosexuals all "revert" to heterosexuality over time, please distribute this information to all operating "ex-gay" ministries and therapists as soon as possible. They can then immediately cease operation, since you have shown that their continued existence is superfluous. No sense in spending money and effort to correct a problem that'll just clear up on its own, after all.

Talked to Greg Quinlan who was on the scene at the NEA fracas. The exact phrase Greg recalled Wayne blessing him with was "F-ing, nelly fairy." Correct me if I am wrong but I think those are derogatory words for someone who is gay? I am not sure if I will get them, but I understand pictures are forthcoming. So if Wayne were writing the headline, it might read something like: "Besen escorted from NEA confrontation for using hate speech."

I've no need, or inclination, to justify use of the f-word in public. If in fact this is what was said.

But now we know it was Greg Quinlan you talked to, this takes a different slant.

To whit, several years ago Greg Quinlan described Wayne in this way:

shallow, immature "nellie"

Hi Pot, I'm Kettle.

(By accounts, including the appearances we've seen Greg captured on -- Wayne's description, bar the vulgarity, is spot on. And it does seem to bother Greg. Does he butch it up when he speaks to you???)

And, of course, let's not forget Greg's recent appearance in front of the Ohio legislators:

Homosexuality is an emotional disorder, a pathology that can be and has been effectively changed when a person is highly motivated to change.

That statement is many times more insulting than any use of the f-word. A deliberate attempt to degrade people with a hit on all three classic falsehoods.

Trust Greg Quinlan or his motivation, or his claim to have "changed"?

Sure I will. But please pass me a 40 foot barge pole while I'm at it. And a grain, no a bucket, of salt.

PS: you don't seem at all bothered by the false and derelict message that those anti-gay people took to the NEA.

There were others there as well. The booklet Respect and the Facts was the main message of the caucus. And since I am lead author on it, I am ok with their presence. Greg believes homosexuality is a disorder. I have taken exception with him on that many times. However, I do not believe that is the message of the caucus.

grantdale: A follow up. I know you doubt Greg's change; I don't. When he says homosexuality is a disorder, he is also talking about himself. He and I disagree about the general principle but in his case, I think homosexuality did represent an adaptation to a very sad life. For him, reaching out to men sexually may have been a manifestation of disordered affections and attachment. In my opinion, Greg's mistake (and he knows I feel this way) is to overgeneralize his experience to all other gays. I would say another mistake would be to say that homosexual attractions can never represent a problem of adjustment for a given individual. Having made that point, I am sure that the illness perspective was not the official position of the ex-gay educators caucus. I would not support the introduction of this view into schools.

And to be clearer, the reason we doubt the current testimony is for precisely the reasons you have nominated for the the original behaviour -- and you know we're already more than OK with that conceptually for a particular set of individuals. Given the (fully agree) reported background of GQ, we'd see a prime candidate.

It's the extremity of either polarised behaviour -- and subsequent vehement testimony -- that raises red flags for us. It suggests an ongoing issue, rather than a resolution. In other words, whatever is said "today" isn't the end of the matter.

You also know we disagree with the basic approach taken with your piece (basically, it divides, raises "doubts" about only one group of teens, and therefore sets one group up to be stigmatised), but we doubt very much that your piece is all that this group "presented". Particularly if GQ was involved (PFOX, Linda Harvey et al). Your work -- and not just this piece -- is too often used as an introduction for those false and insulting other opinions.

(And we also realise you've struggled to contain that problem over the past year or so.)

-----------------

for anon -- you need to read more.

We have no problem with anyone attempting anything with regard to their own life. That's not the point.

We do take issue with what they claim to have acheived, and a major problem with them then using that to lie about other people. And by "other people", we include ourselves.

Greg is free to attempt anything with himself. He's not free to interfer in other people's lives and expect to go unchallenged.

---------------------

Ivan -- wrong way around.

The responsibility is to first show how and why any trait is a pathology. Absent any evidence, it should not be included. Modern mental health works that way.

It works that way today because from the very beginning some were fully aware -- and alarmed -- that their profession was often in the service of common prejudice rather than medical knowledge.

The old approach withered in the 1960's and died in the 70's, propelled and informed by the growing body of work from related fields (sociology, as example).

Homosexuality was but one area that benefited from that change. On that one subject, psycholanalysis suffered a blow it has never recovered from. It simply became all too obvious that the "experts" were more often projecting their own issues rather than offerig evidence-based scientific knowledge.

Psychiatry and mental health diagnosis is very young and still developing. Prior to the 1970s and the advent of Bob Spitzer, diagnoses were essentially guesses influenced by Freudian theory. Bob wanted to place diagnosis on a more testable, researchable foundation. So criteria for making diagnoses were developed that included assessments of maladaptivity for life and work, and subjective distress. If a condition did not meet those criteria then it was dubious as a mental disorder. This has been a work in progress.

SSA in a person could meet those criteria but there are many cases where it does not. Using the current criteria for diagnosis, many false positives would result. People can have SSA and be happy and experience fulfilled lives. They most often do not have religious or value conflicts about their feelings.

I think the current DSM has it pretty good. Issues relating to sexual orientation are not diagnosable except when they are associated with extreme and persistent distress. One may argue that there is something inherent in the attractions that creates that but you would be hard pressed to prove that. Since I cannot prove it, I don't argue it.

Yes, the norm in reparative circles. And I thought it was obvious that this is what I meant!

Is it true homosexuals are more likely to experience distress and/or maladaptivity of some sort than heterosexuals? This is the line you might hear in reparative circles. Is it true, and if true, why is this the case? I realise you can only hypothesize, but that's all I'm asking for.

1. Is it true Jews who went through the holocaust are more likely to experience distress and/or maladaptivity of some sort than heterosexuals?

2. Is it true inner-city blacks are more likely to experience distress and/or maladaptivity of some sort than heterosexuals?

3. Is it true Amer-Indians are more likely to experience distress and/or maladaptivity of some sort than heterosexuals?

4. Is it true Southerners are more likely to experience distress and/or maladaptivity of some sort than heterosexuals?

4. Is it true widowers are more likely to experience distress and/or maladaptivity of some sort than heterosexuals?

and keep going... :)

For non-Warrens: none of which, of course, is any evidence that a Jew, black, Amer-Indian, Southerner or the bereaved are therefore mentally ill. Individually they may be, but this has nothing to do with any of those particular traits.

(Maladaptive? No, it's merely Adapative.)

Apart from all that, one need not be mentally ill to use the services of a therapist. Though, as the old saying goes -- if you visit a therapist, you probably will be. Eventually. After they've found a category for you. :)

Grant DaleAre you suggesting that Greg and others who have changed their sexual orientation should be denied their constitutional protected right to describe to others their successful experience?Aren’t such individuals the only ones best able to say what has happened to them? How can you say they are living a lie when they are only describing what happened to themselves?How is this interference in anyone’s else’s life?

Generally, I wouldn't debate here on Warren's site. We agree to disagree on some issues and I have my own site to state my position.

But you have made a few claims that I don't want to let go unchallenged. And since you don't reference your claims other than just emphatically (anonymously) STATE them, let me set the record straight:

"...and it IS a fact that sexuality is a fluid thing and not "fixed" and unchangeable as your side would have us believe..."

No, that's not a fact. It's an opinion. It may well be that sexuality is fluid in some persons but it has not been shown to be true in all persons. Only limited observations of the efforts to mutate orientation have been made and they suggest that in the majority of people who attempt reorientation there is little to no success.

Very very few people (a minority of those with ex-gay testimonies) claim to have gone from homosexual to heterosexual in orientation and those that do make that claim seem to be living fully emersed in a life completely based on reorientation - a life not practical for most gay people.

"...we are ethically BOUND to let them see the reearch..."

Perhaps you could share it with us first; I haven't seen it. There isn't adequate research to demonstrate anything about whether reorientation truly is possible. The Spitzer study suggests that in a small percentage of gay people (he suggested 3%) that it might be possible but there are questions about the methods that study employed. Better research is definitely needed.

Finally, I'll jump in and answer a few of your questions to grandale:

"Aren’t such individuals the only ones best able to say what has happened to them?"

While I am somewhat reluctant to completely dismiss what someone says, especially if they seem honest, decent, and without an agenda, this isn't a very good standard to apply. I also don't accept Elvis sightings or alien abductions as fact even if claimed by nice people.

"How can you say they are living a lie when they are only describing what happened to themselves?"

Today there is a news story about Cassey Weierbach, a woman who went to churches and claimed to have AIDS as a result of childhood molestation. She's been charged with fraud because she does not have AIDS.

It is wise to listen to people about their life story. However, it is also wise to be slow to believe that which seems unlikely. And because so many ex-gay testimonies have later been shown to be false, a careful person does not accept ex-gay claims at face value.

"How is this interference in anyone’s else’s life?"

Those persons who wish to change their attractions and/or their behaviors are welcome to do so. And if it makes them happier, all the better.

But when they testify before legislators making claims about my ability/need to reorient, then they are interfering. And because they are providing false testimony about me, I take it personally. And unfortunately it seems that nearly all ex-gay minitries also serve as anti-gay activists.

One of your ex-gay friends responded to my e-mail question regarding whether or not he experiences lust for a woman's body since he is no longer gay....Are you aware that there are ex-gays who do not have lust for the opposite sex?

This comes from Rob ?. I snipped a bunch because it was unnecessarily profane and it disclosed a response from a person that I cannot verify. It asks a question though that is interesting about lust for the opposite sex. I would say that there are ex-gays that only have desire for their spouse. However, this would be a huge change and one that is in keeping with their values.

In fact, one guy I interviewed for the book I am writing said that he had a pass from an attractive woman and he actually felt tempted. He didn't act on it but his automatic response helped him see his own inner change.

Can you speculate why the guy you interviewed was successfull in developing lust for the opposite sex when it seems that non-religious therapy is unsuccessful at achieving this, and even ministries like Exodus report that they have a low success rate of people achieving lust for the opposite sex.

Hey Dr T, I occassionally read Christian news and your name has been mentioned a number of times. It appears you do research into ex-gay counseling. One thing I have never seen though is what is the procedure that a person who has same-sex physical attraction follows in order for him to develop opposite-sex attraction. If there are many procedures that a person can follow, can you describe briefly just one of the procedures that a person on his own or with a counselor can follow to develop opposite-sex attraction?

I don't think that I have ever heard what Dr Throckmorton's views are on what the process is for a person to change their physical attractions from same sex to opposite sex.

Dr Throckmorton, would you mind telling us what the process is, or can you point us to articles you have written, or websites that share your same point of view of the transformation process.

Playmobil, Stephen Bennett says that when he healed his relationship with his father, that he became a heterosexual. No counseling, no exodus, just a very quick change. Yes, I have questioned Stephen in person and he seems commited to this story.

Well, many studies from the late 1990s onward, including probability samples have show an association between homosexuality and psychiatric morbidity.

For instance, a meta-analysis of several random, population-based studies by Meyer, published in 2003 in the journal Psychological Bulletin, is a good example of what some of these new studies have shown: a 2- to 3-fold higher prevalence of mood, anxiety and substance use disorders among homosexuals and bisexuals (nonheterosexuals). This meta-analysis showed that random and population-based samples have shown homosexual and bisexual individuals to be more mentally ill than non-random samples from the 1970s and 1980s, which is of some interest in that gay activists tend to dismiss some negative correlates of homosexuality as an artifact of non-random sampling, but in this case, random sampling shows them to be worse. The meat of the data is summarized below.

Another good point about Meyer’s meta-analysis is that some individual studies that had gone into the meta-analysis had reported some inconsistent finds. For instance, one study reported increased depression among lesbians but a non-significant trend toward increased generalized anxiety disorder, whereas another reported increased generalized anxiety disorder among lesbians but a non-significant trend toward increased depression. The meta-analysis has made it clear that the non-significant trends have failed to reach statistical significance due to small sample sizes, and combining the samples from several studies unambiguously shows increased psychiatric morbidity with respect to all assessed disorders: mood, anxiety and substance use disorders.

One would be prompted to explain these finds in terms of stigma, prejudice, discrimination and victimization. But is the case? Read this for an eyeopener.

The science is clear as to morbidity and maladaptive behaviours in the homsexual population (this is not meant in a derogatory fashion, merely stating a fact) the person who cites that "it's an opinion" clearly does not have even a rudimentary grasp of the scientific method" this is a grave challenge with all the "activists" I have encountered, they accept even the most inane studies that a 3rd grader can readily see are not properly controlled.

As to developement of opposite sex attractions I find in the subjects I have dealt with that there is no "route" to teaching them anything, once the underlying issues are resolved they seem to acquire this on there own and in their own time. The ones I have seen develope the greatest attractions towards the opposite sex all started with simple curiousity and respect and it built itself from their on its own.

This jibes quite well with the evidence (prior to it's being politically inccorect within the APA to discuss such matters) that was seen in patients prior to the early 1970's when we saw a distinct movement in many patients that presented with issues other than homosexualaity and having resolved these issues successfully (and NOT treated homosexuality as an "issue") a significant proportion of these patients resolved on their own into heterosexuality...it was not a fast journey but a sound one that demonstrated that the underlying issues had deep influence on shaping the persons perception of their identity and when the issues were resolved the identity began to turn towards the normative on their own without outside influence...in other words, issue(s) resolved the patients "cured" themselves of their false identity and began to form a new one based upon how they now saw themselves..and found it comforting to "be" who they really were and were able to shed the false self.

Anonymous- if your contention is true, it also argues for the shutting down of all dedicated "ex-gay" therapists and ministries. Presumably, they could reposition themselves as offering general psychiatric counseling, advertise heavily in venues likely to attract the attention of gay people, deal with their gay client's general psychological issues when they come in without bothering about their sexuality, then sit back and wait for homosexuality to disappear.

Whereas women do have a higher prevalence of some specific mental disorders than men, the reverse is true for other mental disorders. For instance, the prevalence of depression, anxiety disorders and borderline personality disorder is higher among women, but men have a higher prevalence of substance use disorders, paraphilias, antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenias, etc. Therefore, it is not maladaptive to be a woman from a mental health standpoint.

Given the different stressors on men and women one can expect differences on any individual measures. What we asked is why the overall mental health of women is apparently worse than men -- and what that is meant to indicate.

Now, and this we have waited on -- back to your own orginal claim, and why you best belong to the Paul Cameron school of research. You are being deceptive.

Proof? Perhaps you'd be good enough to give the full title of Meyer's paper -- and also add what he found. You know as well as we do that it is completely at odds with what you are attempting to push.

Meyer also provided evidence that within lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations, those who more frequently felt stigmatized or discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, who had to conceal their homosexuality, or who were prevented from affiliating with other lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals tended to report more frequent mental health concerns.

Did you get that everyone?

Erik -- who's view elsewhere is far harsher that he lets on here -- promotes the view that homosexuality per se is the cause of higher rates of depression etc.

Erik, the paper you provided as reference in fact says something very different. It's identifying an anti-gay environment. Now, you're free to make your own wild guesses about anything, or have your own prejudices. But don't misrepresent others.

Where is your evidence that women are overall more mentally ill than men? Do not cite studies where only some mental disorders such as mood, anxiety and substance use disorders are evaluated, especially those based on people who seek mental treatment on their own initiative. If you pick up DMS-IV-TR, you will encounter several mental disorders that are more prevalent among men.

I have not misrepresented Meyer’s find. The find in Meyer’s paper is the result of the meta-analysis, which I have summarized above. Meyer proposed a minority stress hypothesis to account for the increase in psychiatric morbidity, but it remains a mere proposition, and his paper does not prove it. For instance, here is Meyer in his own words:

The conclusion I propose—that LGB individuals are exposed to excess stress due to their minority position and that this stress causes an excess in mental disorders—is inconsistent with research and theoretical writings that can be described as a minority resilience hypothesis, which claims that stigma does not negatively affect self-esteem (Crocker et al., 1998; Gray-Little & Hafdahl, 2000; Twenge & Crocker, 2002). As such, my conclusion is also inconsistent with studies that showed that Blacks do not have higher prevalences of mental disorders than Whites, as is expected by minority stress formulations (Kessler et al., 1994; Robins & Regier, 1991). Further research must address this apparent contradiction.

Meyer speculates that since LGB individuals acquire their sexual orientation identity later than African-Americans acquire their ethnic identity, and are not born into a supposedly self-enhancing social environment, perhaps this explains their greater sensitivity to minority stress, but then this is speculation, not something that is proven.

Regarding the italicized passage you have quoted from the APA’s webpage, the statement is misleading since it is not specified to what extent greater experiences with stigma, discrimination and concealment accounted for the increase in reported mental health concerns, which is something that Meyer did not statistically analyze in his paper, but then a number of studies in this regard are new and were published after Meyer’s paper. These studies have attempted to statistically control for a variety of factors that are expected to contribute to worsened mental health, but in several cases the increase in psychiatric morbidity either does not diminish or diminishes only slightly, and I have summarized a number of such studies here. Therefore, the belief that the increase in psychiatric morbidity among LGB individuals is entirely accounted for in terms of minority stress is unsupported; stigma, prejudice, discrimination and victimization are only accounting for a minority of the variance in the increase in psychiatric morbidity.

Besides, my argument is not that homosexuality per se is the cause of the greater psychiatric morbidity among homosexual and bisexual individuals, but that developmental factors leading to nonheterosexuality are also largely behind the increased psychiatric morbidity observed among nonheterosexuals, as summed up in the diagram on this page. Additionally, I do not belong to the Paul Cameron School of research; Cameron would strongly disagree with many of my assertions.

Where is your evidence that women are overall more mentally ill than men?

Erik, did you miss our deliberate use of "apparently"? Apparently, yes.

Perhaps you yourself might like to start with Sandfort. You know the one. Good enough for the goose and the gander?

And we're more than familiar with your site. Actually, both sites. But let's leave that other one for another day.

This is what you do:

1) here's a study I selected2) here's a study I selected3) here's a study I selected4) wild assumption by Erik5) here's a study I selected6) here's a study I selected7) my conclusion based on those studies and the wild assumption.

That is straight out of the Paul Cameron school of research. Whether you two would argue over conclusions doesn't alter the identical methodology.

And just like him, you're very quick to point to the studies from genuine researchers as a defence, but also just like him also neglect to mention the wild assumption from yourself that is embedded in the conclusion.

Have you corresponded with Meyer, as example, on this subject? What did he say?

I think there is something to the argument that some factors in addition to homosexuality predispose those who later become homosexual to more mental health issues. While not all gays are gender nonconforming, those who are could very well account for some of the overrepresentation of mental health problems among gays. Sexual abuse is a known correlate of mental health issues and this history is more frequent among gay identified people. Add this to stigma and fear and you have a recipe for trouble. I suspect if a multivariate study was done, you would find all of these issues factoring in the variance.

What you refer to as a wild assumption, namely that developmental factors leading to nonheterosexuality are also largely behind the increased psychiatric morbidity observed among nonheterosexuals, is an inference based on an extensive literature review, only part of which I have presented online. Your description of my methodology easily sums up the methodology of many activist gay academics whom you would certainly not classify as part of the Cameron School of research. For instance, the notion of internalized homophobia has no construct validity, yet is widely used in even top journals.

I did contact Meyer, but he did not respond. I also contacted Charlotte Patterson, whose work you are probably familiar with, but she did not respond either. Jack Drescher, the Chair of APA’s Committe on GLB issues, wrote an article similar to the APA article in support of same-sex marriage that you linked to. I responded to his assertions about the reasons for the worsened mental health among GLB individuals, but he did not argue against the evidence. The fact is that academics are ignoring what the newer studies are increasingly documenting, which is what you call my wild assumption, and this will continue till it will be embarrassing for the APA to pretend otherwise.

There is cool new research coming up. For instance, some academics will be publishing the results from several studies showing increased psychiatric morbidity among the heterosexual relatives of GLB individuals compared to those of heterosexual individuals. Try explaining this and other cool upcoming research in terms of minority stress.

And we're well aware of what "inference" means when the person is talking about a subject they only know (at best) third-hand: "wild guess".

i.e.#1 In the case of all your pages on this particular subject you assume -- without any reason given -- that all individuals and all groups that are persecuted are similarly situated and will behave, react, and internalise their persecution in the same way. Your entire "logic" is based on that gross and false assumption.

That's why you think you can directly compare a lone gay teen who only has a therapist to talk to with a black child who is and always was surrounded by their supportive black family.

When was the last time you heard of black parents kicking their child out of home for being black?

Your base assumption is dead wrong. Back to Psych 101. No, start with History 101.

As for none of the experts wishing to communicate with you: perhaps that says more than enough. Unless, of course, you are inferring that you know more than they do.

You've never bothered first running any of this nonsense past someone gay, have you? That much seems perfectly obvious -- the dismissal of internalised homophobia as but a perfect example. Your "gay vocabularly" page -- ripped right off Reisman -- near had me in tears from laughing.

The papers documenting increased psychiatric morbidity among the heterosexual relatives of GLB individuals will reveal an increase in disorders other than mere depression, and also that this increase predates the outing of the GLB individuals. One forthcoming study will also be documenting a higher prevalence of atopy among both GLB individuals and their relatives; atopy is some combination of allergies, asthma, eczema and related anomalies associated with the disruption of the autonomic nervous system. All this is explicable in terms of minority stress, right?

Your claim that I have assumed “that all individuals and all groups that are persecuted are similarly situated and will behave, react, and internalise their persecution in the same way” is patently absurd. Nobody would assume this. It is not me who is directly comparing “a lone gay teen who only has a therapist to talk to with a black child who is and always was surrounded by their supportive black family;” in fact, nobody is. Meyer and some others have though it pertinent to see the GLB issue in light of the consequences of being an ethnic minority, to see if some parallels can be drawn, but the ethnicity situation does not lend support to the minority stress hypothesis for explaining the worsened mental health of GLB individuals. Besides, you have ignored studies that have shown no or little reduction in psychiatric morbidity after statistically adjusting for level of family support.

Regarding the “experts” not wishing to converse with me, this indeed says something about them, namely their inability to defend some of their cherished ideas. You are incorrect that I have not tried running my “nonsense” through someone who is gay; I have named some “experts” in a previous comment; other “experts” know about my work, and plenty of gays have gone through my site.

Regarding the concept of “internalized homophobia,” it is of course reasonable to assume that if most others find one’s orientation displeasing, then one may be uncomfortable with one’s orientation, but it is a stretch to assume that any discomfort with one’s orientation is solely or largely a function of the internalization of societal prejudice, something that has not been proven, and it is for this reason that this concept lacks construct validity.

Lastly, I did not lift my gay slang page off of Reisman; I don’t recall Reisman extensively documenting gay slang. Look at the citations; many of them are from gay sources, and even the Christian sources have obtained them from gay literature. I have also cited gay historian Rictor Norton, who has documented that the bulk of gay slang comes from within the gay community, and is used for the purposes of “cultural solidarity,” but not a desire to cope with or undermine straight culture or to convey secret messages.